JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in FIR No.01/05, dated 04.1.2005 registered at Police Station PSVB Amritsar. The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 06.07.2009 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Gajjan Singh, father of the complainant-Lakhwinder Singh owned five acres of land. In the year 1990, Gajjan Singh had deposited security with the Punjab State Electricity Board ('Board' for short) for tubewell connection. In the year 2001, Gajjan Singh received a demand notice for deposit of Rs.15,240.00. Tubewell bore was dug and submersible motor was installed. Appellant was working as lineman with the Board in the area. Appellant told the complainant that he was running the motor illegally. Complainant told the appellant that he would run the motor only after the tubewell connection was sanctioned in his favour. Appellant met the complainant on 03.01.2005 and raised a demand of Rs.7000.00 as bribe and threatened the complainant that in case the said amount was not paid, he would make the complaint against him that the complainant was running an illegal connection. The matter was settled at Rs.4000.00. The complainant did not want to pay the said bribe money and hence, met the vigilance official. Complainant handed over eight currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500.00 each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance Bureau who in turn returned the same to the complainant after application of Phenolphthalein powder (hereinafter referred as 'P.Powder'). Complainant was directed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. Mehal Singh was deputed to act as a shadow witness and was instructed to give signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant. Demonstration of working of P.Powder was shown to the witness. Harbhajan Singh and Durga Dass were joined as official witnesses. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant alongwith shadow witness went to the shop of Baldev Singh. Appellant was already present there. Complainant handed over the bribe money to the appellant on demand. On receipt of a signal from the shadow witness, the remaining raiding party entered the shop. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from left shirt pocket of the appellant. When the left shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. Prosecution, in order to prove its case,led its evidence.

(2.) APPELLANT , when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure had prayed as under:-

(3.) LEARNED State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The complainant as well as the other prosecution witnesses had duly Criminal Appeal S No. 1780-SB of 2009(O&M) 5 proved the prosecution case.